Exhibit CVPA
Updated
Thursday April 10, 2008 07:39

Dr Richard J Hanson and Dr William H Payne, Saturday July 30, 2005.

You will find Drs Hanson, Payne, and Lewis in the index of the Art of Computer Programming Volume 2 2nd eds+.

Knuth always discovers and publishes the middle name, not just the initial, of his citations. Richard Joseph Hanson, William Harris Payne [after his grandfather Israel H Harris], Theodore Gyle Lewis.

This visibility may help our legal project.

Web cam photo.

Looking at pro fights pages, of course.

Dr Hanson heard Dr Fushimi talk in IMSL in Houston about his work with the GFSR pseudorandom number generator and recommended that Payne contact Dr Fushimi.

Dr Payne, of course, took Dr Hanson's suggestion!

Sandia got story wrong and got caught violating the criminal provisions of the Privacy Act in writing.

Dr Hanson worked with Dr Masanori Fushimi at Visual Numerics.

Here's Dr Fushimi's meishi [business card].




The above business card was obtained at the University of Tokyo when an autographed copy of Embedded controller forth for the 8051 family was delieved to Dr Fushimi.

All of this was started by innocent communications between a Japanese professor and Payne.

Knuth explains the GFSR in The Art of Computer Programming V2 2ed+.

Documents seen below were given to Payne by Richard Gallegos

who received them the the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in Phoenix who saw Payne's signature..


Release of documents like those seen in the above exhibits without written consent is a criminal violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm

5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states,

CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE - No agency shall disclose any record which is contain in a systems of records by any means of communications to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to who the record pertains, ...

5 USC 552a(i)1 applies.

CRIMINAL PENALTIES. - Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

Further,

The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency denies access to a record or refuses to amend a record. An individual may sue an agency if the agency fails to maintain records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination and the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the individual. An individual may also sue an agency if the agency fails to comply with any other Privacy Act provision in a manner that has an adverse effect on the individual.

An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the Federal District Court in which the individual lives, in which the records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date on which the basis for the lawsuit arose.

http://www.epic.org/open_gov/citizens_guide_93.html

EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES

I. Generally

In recent years the trend has become for employers not to give detailed or even meaningful employment references when asked to do so. Most employers today either give no employment reference information or merely confirm that the (former) employee worked for the employer during specified dates and at a certain rank or position. The rationale for the unwillingness to provide more complete or specific information is that employers must minimize their risk of exposure to workplace defamation liability.

Generally, an employer is liable to an employee for defamation if the employer publishes a false statement about the employee that harms the employee's reputation and that is not privileged.

Each element of a defamation action is examined briefly below.

First, employers cannot make false statements about an employee. Employers can now be held liable for false statements only if they are responsible for the falsity. This means that the employer can be held liable for a false statements only if they were negligent in attempting to ensure the truthfulness of the statement. In other words, employers are not liable for a false statement if they were not negligent in their attempts to ensure that the statement was true before they published it.

RISK-FREE HIRING: How to Interview, Check References and Use Pre- employment Testing without Triggering Liability PRESENTED TO: COUNCIL ON EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO JUNE 25, 1997

PRESENTED BY: DEBRA J. MOULTON, ESQ. KAREN KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 6400 UPTOWN BLVD., NE, SUITE 630-E ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87110 (505) 884-7887

_____

7-1 Defamation Defined

The test for defamation is not merely a statement that hurts one's reputation. Defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement of fact. When defamation occurs in written form it is called libel. When the defamation is an oral communication, it is called slander. In order to prove that one has been defamed, the New Mexico courts rely on proof of the following facts:

1. that there was a defamatory statement of fact concerning another (i.e. a statement, as opposed to an opinion, that tends to lower the employee in the esteem of the community or other respectable individuals);

2. the statement must be published; that is it must be spoken or otherwise communicated to at least one person, usually a "third party," other than the complaining party;

3. fault amounting at least to negligence (should have known it was false) on part of the publisher, or, if the employer is a public official, the statement must have been made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth; and

4. that the statement was the proximate cause of actual injury to the employee.

It is imperative that employers take action to stop all defamatory actions by their employees, even in the realm of horseplay, since there exists in New Mexico both criminal, and civil liability for such actions.

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT IN NEW MEXICO: A Complete Desktop Guide to Employment Law, ERIC SIROTKIN Butterworth, 1994.